Tags:

Text Size

-

+

reset

Sen. Arlen Specter leaves a press conference.
Reuters

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) said Sunday in his first TV interview since becoming a Democrat last week that he had not promised to be “a loyal Democrat” and would lead a filibuster against his new party if he felt strongly enough about an issue.

Specter told David Gregory on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he had determined “with polls and a lot of personal contact” that his reelection prospects as a Republican were “bleak.”

But he added: “There’s more than being reelected here. There’s the factor of principle. The Republican Party has gone far to the right since I joined it under Reagan’s big tent. … In recent times, I have diverged materially from the Republican line … As the picture has evolved, I felt a lot more comfortable — as a matter of principle — with Democrats than Republicans.”

Specter heatedly denied a Wall Street Journal report that he had told the White House that he would be “a loyal Democrat.”

““I have shown, repeatedly, my independence — willing to cross party lines — when I thought the interests of the American people and Pennsylvania required it,” Specter said. “If I see that there are other issues where I feel as a matter of conscience, I will continue a filibuster against legislation.”

Specter repeated the news, previously reported, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had agreed to allow him to keep his seniority.

“That’s an entitlement. I’ve earned the seniority,” he said. “I will be treated by the Democrats as if I’d been elected as a Democrat.”

Asked if Democratic leaders had seen to it that he would not face a primary challenge, Specter said: “They have not — flatly, not.”

Asked about his core principles, the first two Specter listed were “freedom, a woman’s right to choose.”

Specter, a survivor of the cancer Hodgkin's lymphoma, has opened a website to push for more medical research.

“If we had pursued the war on cancer, which President Nixon declared in 1970, Jack Kemp might be alive today,” Specter said. “This medical research has prolonged or saved many lives, including mine.”

That's actually a bit confusing. They moved far to the right on social issues...so far, in fact, that they became pro-big-government in order to implement their social issues. So in one sense they did move far right...in another they kinda moved left. Plus they abandoned fiscal responsibility.

The whole two dimensional left/right political scale really doesn't cut it anymore. :)

That's actually a bit confusing. They moved far to the right on social issues...so far, in fact, that they became pro-big-government in order to implement their social issues. So in one sense they did move far right...in another they kinda moved left. Plus they abandoned fiscal responsibility.

You are correct. I was referring more to the resulting trainwreck that occured from the shift.

Arlen Specter said he was "entitled" to privileges because of his seniority. No elected public official should feel entitled to anything other than to represent the people. To me, this underscores part of the root cause as to why Washington does not work - I believe with reasonable term limits for all branches of government, there would be more integrity in our political system.

Arlen Specter said he was "entitled" to privileges because of his seniority. No elected public official should feel entitled to anything other than to represent the people. To me, this underscores part of the root cause as to why Washington does not work - I believe with reasonable term limits for all branches of government, there would be more integrity in our political system.

No he said this

That’s an entitlement. I’ve earned the seniority,” he said. “I will be treated by the Democrats as if I’d been elected as a Democrat.”

And the federal budget he unveiled last month projects even faster increases in the National Debt. It’ll hit $12.7-trillion by the end of the fiscal year on September 30th. The Administration’s four year estimate shows that by the end of September 2012, the Debt will have soared to $16.2-trillion – which amounts to nearly 100% of the projected Gross Domestic Product that year.

It took the U.S. government 191 years – from 1791 until 1982 – to run up its first trillion dollars in debt. The second and third trillions got on the scoreboard much more quickly – each in just four years.

By the time George W. Bush was inaugurated in 2001, the National Debt stood at $5.7-trillion. He ran up more debt faster than nearly all of his predecessors combined: just under $4.9-trillion.

The National Debt stood at $10.6-trillon on the day Barack Obama took office. But if his budget projections are accurate, he’ll run up nearly as much government debt in four years as President Bush did in eight.

There's no factor of principle here. It's purely opportunism based on his reading of the polls. Does he really think that the PA voters are so simple-minded as to not see it for the craven, self-serving ploy that it is????

If there is any justice in the world, Cestak will primary him, or if not, Ridge will challenge him from the Republican side and he'll get his just desserts.

I know why they helped organize the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition in the 1980s and 1990s, basically to funnel Southern evangelicals and social conservatives into the Republican party. It's all part of the Southern Strategy that Nixon and Goldwater helped formulate in the 1960s.

Now, though, the question the have to face is whether the appeals to this faction have cost them so badly in the other parts of the counrtry that they really need to revise their message. What worked for them with Reagan and Gingrich just isn't working 20-30 years later, especially with the problems we have now.

SPECTER IS AN ASS. --- HE UNDERSTANDS NOTHING OF WHAT OUR CONSTITUTION WANTED OF OUR GOVERNMENT --- SPECTER HAS BECOME A SELF-SERVING POLITICIAN WHOSE ONLY CONCERN IS HIS RE-ELECTION --- MAYBE ITS HIS ILLNESS.

They want the policies of Ovomit, Barney Porkpuffer, Teddy Chappaquiddick, Nazi Piglosi, and Spector the Defector to FAIL.

And I be that right there is the extent of your policy arguments, right?

I suppose you want them to fail in Afghanistan and Iraq? Want them to fail while dealing with Iran? North Korea?

Maybe you just want them to fail so that you can say "Vote these failures out!" during the next election?

This is the problem with partisanism, and why Madison warned us about the dangers of "faction." Parties put the Party before the country, which means they're willing to take down America itself if it gives their party a leg up on the other party.

How anyone can say the Republicans are moving right while the nation marches towards socialized medicine, ever more progress tax rates, government owned business, and huge government spending that dwarfs even the most hyperboilc blovating from the left about G.W.B's spend (which was high)?

That's not Republicans moving right, that's Barry grabbing the wheel of the nation' s bus and wrenching it left into the opposing lanes.

Welcome to the Democratic Party, Senator Arlen Specter. Would Sen. Specter stand by us through Health care reform, Energy reform, and SCOTUS confirmations? Only time will tell. He gets the next six months to prove himself. Personally, I believe Joe Sestak would make a better senator. Joe doesn't have any republican DNA to weigh him down. However if Specter stays in line for six months, he gets another six years.

I believe the "benefits" Sen Specter was referring to were more of an issue of applying his legislative experience at an appropriate level of responsibility versus receiving some sort of compensation. (maybe he gets a good parking space or something)

Term limits, while they sound good every once in a while, carry their own disadvantages. By loosing that legislative experience things just don't work quite as effectively. Society also looses good leadership. And finally I believe you see a shift in power from the legislature to the bureaucrats.

Our state some years ago instituted term limits on the legislature and I supported it at the time. I currently belive that was a mistake.

How anyone can say the Republicans are moving right while the nation marches towards socialized medicine, ever more progress tax rates, government owned business, and huge government spending that dwarfs even the most hyperboilc blovating from the left about G.W.B's spend (which was high)?

That's not Republicans moving right, that's Barry grabbing the wheel of the nation' s bus and wrenching it left into the opposing lanes.

No one said the Democrats weren't moving left. But, particularly on social issues, Republicans have moved pretty far to the right.